If you are communicating with them, what is the result that you seek through such action? Without a message or instruction, there is no communication. If there was another way to say it, you’re wishing to make the best persuasive argument.

The result is the purpose of the exercise, as described, ie., communication. As you may or may not realize at this time, there IS no communication from the People to the Congress, the Executive, nor the Supreme Court.

Why excuse anything? They are what they are, and if you believe they aren’t purchased, you must be new to this planet.

What I am saying is that while the practice exists, it does not make the practice any more correct.

There is no question proposed requiring a judgement upon behavior.

If it is open to use by one bidder, it is open to any bidder – whether they do your favored bidding or someone else’s. It doesn’t stop devoted opportunists that say and do anything for a dollar, a vote, or a seat on a committee.

The ESTABLISHMENT of Communication is the point. What is done to, for, or with the party with which communication is established is immaterial at this point.

Simply put: Ya cain’t be doin’ much if’n you ain’t talkin’ with ‘em, and neither side is listnin’.

The better idea is to support, vote for, and elect someone that will represent your interests. Then repeat as necessary. No need to bring out the illusion of choice, when you know that someone is already in agreement.

And just how would you suggest establishing and maintaining communication with THIS group? I am assuming you believe them to be “different” from any other group.

Realize this: What one would want to achieve, were one studied, and serious about their future, would be visceral communication. The ability for all involved to be aware of the others’ positions from a standpoint of USEFUL PRACTICALITY of function and ability, as regards the General Welfare, given their position within the “System”, and their ability to exert functional effect upon their area(s) of responsibility.

THIS is why we use “particular methods” to attract, gain, and hold their attention.

Someone with enough character and personal strength will not need much persuasion. Find and promote those people instead. These people will be able to support and defend your interests better than someone who requires constant persuasion.

None of your dream, immediately above, is even worth considering; especially without communication, as described. It is a pipe-dream, a wish, a hope, if you will, and, unfortunately reveals a glaring flaw in your logic, for, in this circumstance, there is no room for pipe-dreams. RESULTS are required; nothing else should be considered.

“Sub-human” is YOUR word, not mine. One must be as objective as the very word “objective” to be able to effectively communicate. Take a nice, long OBJECTIVE look at any union you would choose. Then, if you please, describe for me the ACTUAL functionality of the organization, EXTANT. You will then see my point.

When you compare them as being amongst animals that have to be led/trained, you’re not leaving much room for anything else.

I am decribing METHODS which have worked for me for many, many years. I have chosen to illustrate those methods using horses and mules, two difficult exercises in communication with which I am most intimately familiar, as well as quite successful, I might humbly add.

Rather than seeing the value, obviously you see what you must describe as disparagement. The entire exercise is lost to you.

Oh — did you finish that description of actual objective functionality of any union you might choose? What did you discover? Did you find the worth and value of visceral communication with emphasis upon practicality to be useful?

Didn’t think so.

Left alone in presence of better alternatives(from the perspective of the one that makes the choice), unionization will perish. Make the better persuasive argument before thinking of a forceful/adversarial one.

You have missed the entire objective of the exercise.

My sincere sympathy.

Noooo…..you’re going to COMMUNICATE with them. You and I are COMMUNICATING, but our behavior remains the same.

If you are communicating with them, what is the result that you seek through such action? Without a message or instruction, there is no communication. If there was another way to say it, you’re wishing to make the best persuasive argument.

Why excuse anything? They are what they are, and if you believe they aren’t purchased, you must be new to this planet.

What I am saying is that while the practice exists, it does not make the practice any more correct. If it is open to use by one bidder, it is open to any bidder – whether they do your favored bidding or someone else’s. It doesn’t stop devoted opportunists that say and do anything for a dollar, a vote, or a seat on a committee.

The better idea is to support, vote for, and elect someone that will represent your interests. Then repeat as necessary. No need to bring out the illusion of choice, when you know that someone is already in agreement.

Someone with enough character and personal strength will not need much persuasion. Find and promote those people instead. These people will be able to support and defend your interests better than someone who requires constant persuasion.

“Sub-human” is YOUR word, not mine. One must be as objective as the very word “objective” to be able to effectively communicate. Take a nice, long OBJECTIVE look at any union you would choose. Then, if you please, describe for me the ACTUAL functionality of the organization, EXTANT. You will then see my point.

When you compare them as being amongst animals that have to be led/trained, you’re not leaving much room for anything else.

Left alone in presence of better alternatives(from the perspective of the one that makes the choice), unionization will perish. Make the better persuasive argument before thinking of a forceful/adversarial one.

sethstorm on July 3, 2011 at 5:54 PM

Those two things contradict each other. You’re not changing their behavior, while you… …change their behavior. You’re delivering implied threats while saying you’re not threatening someone. You’re asking for only communication when you ask for more than communication.

Either you’re going to change someone, or you’re not going to change someone.

Noooo…..you’re going to COMMUNICATE with them. You and I are COMMUNICATING, but our behavior remains the same.

Excusing the part where it’s OK to (re)purchase Congresspersons,

Why excuse anything? They are what they are, and if you believe they aren’t purchased, you must be new to this planet.

treating those who choose to support unions as sub-human,

“Sub-human” is YOUR word, not mine. One must be as objective as the very word “objective” to be able to effectively communicate. Take a nice, long OBJECTIVE look at any union you would choose. Then, if you please, describe for me the ACTUAL functionality of the organization, EXTANT. You will then see my point.

and dressing it up in contradictory language doesn’t exactly say “freedom” in it.

Please pardon me if I don’t rise to the bait. I’m old, experienced, and wily.

You, obviously, are not. No offense.

Why isn’t the fact that the debt ceiling was not raised 3 times in 1985, 1995 and 2002 as was supposedly needed being compared to the present situation and we did not default then prior to congress acting.

amr on July 3, 2011 at 6:56 PM

Excellent point! I’ll need to research these examples and see how long before Congress caved – if they did.

What may be different now is the absolute opposition to raising now or ever again. It is not a matter of timing – it is a matter of saying “never again” – and CUT SPENDING STARTING NOW. This is a watershed moment in our history. If Obama gets his way then there will never again be a practical limit on federal spending…and taxing.

This is set point and match point.

We are NOT modifying behavior in any way. We are NOT asking for him to betray his ideals. We are NOT asking for ANYthing other than communication.

See … once you have the communication established, and reinforced, it is darn-near impossible for the Critter to NOT pay attention to you for his apprehension of what will be visited upon his countenance should communication be interrupted.

Those two things contradict each other. You’re not changing their behavior, while you… …change their behavior. You’re delivering implied threats while saying you’re not threatening someone. You’re asking for only communication when you ask for more than communication.

Either you’re going to change someone, or you’re not going to change someone. Excusing the part where it’s OK to (re)purchase Congresspersons, treating those who choose to support unions as sub-human, and dressing it up in contradictory language doesn’t exactly say “freedom” in it.

Presidents change. One of the reasons for the stability which this nation represents to the world is that regardless of the beliefs and ideologies of the current occupant of the White House, our three-branch system of checks and balances prevents despotic abuses of power.

The world may make many negative claims about us, but they all depend upon us. They rely on our overarching sense of reason and justice whether they like it or not. The moment that world sees that two branches of our government have allowed the Executive to assume despotic authority, the underpinnings of that trust and reliance are gone, and everything in the world becomes a Persian Bazaar.

I hope he tries it so we can impeach him.

Vegi on July 2, 2011 at 11:00 PM

Impeachment will be easy. Getting 66 senators to remove him from office will be impossible.

I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. If we run into such debts, we must be taxed in our meat and drink, in our necessities and in our comforts, in our labor and in our amusements. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labor of the people, under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
- Thomas Jefferson

how long until he bans yellow?

Can he really ban the entire GOP?

I am surprised that the House and Senate does not seem to care at all…

equanimous on July 2, 2011 at 12:04 AM

What I have heard is that to do anything against him would likely result in union protest, socialist and communist fueled riots and crys of racism that would disrupt our country.

I would say that might be a correct assumption. My opinion is to do it and confront the socialist and communist rot that is dragging our country down.

It is not like no one knew he was not quailified to be president. Every effort has been made since he became politically active to change the qualification to be president from “Natural born” to just being a citizen of 14 to 20 years. To be legal it has to be done by an admendment to the Consitution, but that does not work well for socialist causes. As we know, to socialist, laws are just meant for the common people to feel secure and to disrequard when they become inconvient.

There are people with real power that would have difficulties if their envolvment or even the perception that they helped with keeping him in office was exposed. The legal difficuties our nation would face is nothing compared to the difficulties they would be exposed to if Obama were to be removed from office.

I would guess they are at a difficult crossroad. Obama is toxic, especially after he releast a forged CLB. They could wait until near the election and insure that he does not win re-election or better, at the appropriate time have Obama decide that he needs to spend more time with family, or medical issues have come up, that cause him to decide not to run. That gives them a chance to save their gains towards changing the country to socialism with getting a socialist or communist into the presidency that does not have the illgeblity issues and lives in the real world or reality. Or they could see that now is not the time and wait another 40 years to try again, when America has regained enough wealth to make it possible to fund a socialist change.

onlineanalyst on July 2, 2011 at 4:29 PM

He furthermore needs to have his sails trimmed by Congress, the courts, and the people.

That’d be US. WE, the people. Our critters in Congress will do what they’re told, once we get their attention.

Now … I’ve been around horses and mules pretty much most of my life, and I’ve had the misfortune to be around any number of union officials as well.

(Personally, my opinion of the mules is much higher than that of the union officials, and my opinion is infinitely higher of the Horse.)

The point is, with all four species, horses, mules, unionists, and Congress Critters, your results in attempting to influence their behavior is directly related to YOUR ABILITY TO SPEAK THEIR LANGUAGE!

With a horse, initial communication is body language, which can translate to body position, eventually transiting to the spoken word to achieve a near-100% reliable communication.

Pretty much the same with a mule, except that a mule is a LOT smarter than a horse, and has a better grasp of his surroundings, and an innate capability of rendering judgement (almost) exclusively in his favor. To influence that mule, letting him have his way 25% of the time and having YOUR way 75% of the time mollifies him to the point of understanding and agreeing with your wishes. You use your 75% of your way to influence his choices of his 25%, thus making a nearly perfect capability of communication.

Now, the union man is another story. Once you get past his rhetoric about “the working man”, “oppression”, “slave labor” and his personally insulting and degrading remarks, you get down to the basis of 100% communication with him, ie., 25% power and 75% money. This ratio fluctuates, depending upon his level in his local and national, and his union’s standing among the other nationally-recognized unions; but, you get the idea.

Obviously, it can be done. The difficulty is in keeping him bought, once you’ve bought him. There are some quite effective remedies for that character flaw, but we’ll explore those another time.

The crux of the matter at hand rests with effective communication with The Congresscritter. There we seem to be up against power, money, and “influence”, which is a two-way combination of both.

This is NOT an easily-learned, and even less-easily applied lesson, for it can become quite dangerous, in numerous ways, to the person attempting effective communication with ANY elected representative, much less a Congresscritter.

I have found that one cannot effectively threaten a Congresscritter without following through. Therefore, don’t threaten a Congresscritter. With ANYthing. Nor any member of their staff.

Simply take the air out of their sails quickly, and effectively; but only with a very small, yet important, part of their PUBLIC LIFE. You get to choose the item.

Do not take public credit for it, but simply make certain parties very aware that you are a person of influence beyond their capability to affect.

You have just established your initial line of communication with your Critter and now have his attention.

As with horses, mules, and unionists, getting their attention is the first step, followed by a clear and concise explanation of what action you wish them to perform next.

This is ALWAYS a small, minor request, easily complied, and sets the stage for the next explanation, and the nest and the next, etc. etc., yadda yadda, yadda, until you have established a true communication, always being observant for any influences upon your critter which could change or modify the effects of your efforts.

We are NOT modifying behavior in any way. We are NOT asking for him to betray his ideals. We are NOT asking for ANYthing other than communication.

See … once you have the communication established, and reinforced, it is darn-near impossible for the Critter to NOT pay attention to you for his apprehension of what will be visited upon his countenance should communication be interrupted.

So … for those of you looking for the synopsis, here it is:

Who’s the boss?

WE’RE the boss!

Who’s THEIR boss?

WE’RE their boss.

Who do they listen to?

WE, The People.

And what happens if they don’t?

They can find a new boss, all by themselves.

See?

Nothin’ to it!

And no way the White House and Obama want anything to do with ignoring Congress AND the will of the public that is overwhelming against raising the debt ceiling, let alone ignoring it altogether.

Well, Obama was a Constitutional Law Professor. I guess he knows what he’s doing . . . .

/

BigAlSouth on July 2, 2011 at 6:43 AM

I know that you put a sarc tag there, BigAlSouth, but ObaMao had made it clear way back in his Chicago days through a radio interview that he sees the Constitution as a document that limits the government, that says what it cannot do. ObaMao keeps “audaciously” pushing the limits by imposing fiats about what the government should do. He needs to go back to school and learn some English first. He furthermore needs to have his sails trimmed by Congress, the courts, and the people.

Look at the perry case that liberals often cite in their argument. There is also a clear argument that congress can set limits on the debt.